Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffErratic Date: Jun 27, 2004 6:56am
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: Mercedes-Benz hearts netlabels?

To me it seems that MB has just started their own bastardized type of "netlabel", for no other reason than promotion for their own website/corporation. i agree with the people implying that MB is abusing the netlabel "standards", molding em in a way that they could get away with very cheap promotion. MB by its corporate nature is just not in the right position to start a "netlabel". The only reason why they even have an "entertainment" section is because they want more people to stay on their site, period.

We all know it's not an easy task running a (net)label, seeking out talented musicians, and trying to assemble a decent target audience. MB disregards all that by plucking those artists that already made a difference on different netlabels, and by only targetting their company's audience. In this way they piss on what defines netlabels. Tell me: how can a bunch of moneydriven 9-5'ers replace a serious netlabel-owner's "passionate" (as Sebastian puts it) perspective? By doing market-research?

And finally, how pathetic is this Sony deal... i believe that a release with Sony (or similar money-oriented labels) is an awful goal for an artist. What the big labels do is try to define the masses' taste to attract the biggest public possible, to in turn make their profits. Smaller indie labels are usually run by people that release and specialize in their own tastes, rather than most buyers' tastes (hence they are doomed to be smaller). And while it may not be possible to make a living through indie labels (not much you can expect from the lower number of printed copies...), i still see them as the morally responsible way to make money (little as it may be) with your productions. We don't need another milliondollar rockstar ór spice girls, we need targeted music, for all kinds of groups of like-minded individuals. Somehow massconsumption doesn't fit in this picture, while indie labels and netlabelism do.

> Putting aside our artistic underground egos for a second.. I'm sure there's little argument that the majority of players
> here wouldn't mind or even aspire to make a living off of their music if the situation would arise...

Obviously it is my conception that no worthy artist can actually live off their productions alone, without resorting to more commercial labels, where music equals money and top50 charts, which would make them unworthy in my book. It's a question of artists' integrity. Artists that are on there: Do you really want to be a rockstar...? Because thát imho is where the ego comes in.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffaaron m Date: Jun 27, 2004 11:04am
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: Mercedes-Benz hearts netlabels?

Yeah, these points have already made, but at least you managed to come off with more hostility. It's my conTENtion that this is (partially) a typical one-sided and narrow view of an ever evolving industry. When i used the word Masses, its obvious I did not mean mass consumption. Art and music is to be communicated.. targeted audiences fine, but unless people know what exists they'll never even know to look. I also find that reducing all of MB's customer base to money driven, money greedy people as immature.

>MB disregards all that by plucking those artists
>that already made a difference on different
>netlabels, and by only targetting their
>company's audience.

A type of audience we don't normally target. I see no problem with this..someone doing the work for us that we dont want or care to do.

>In this way they piss on what defines netlabels.

In what way? I fail to see the connection here. You're reaching.

>Tell me: how can a bunch of moneydriven 9-5'ers
>replace a serious netlabel-owner's "passionate"
>(as Sebastian puts it) perspective?

Whats even the point of this question? Again I fail to see the connection.

In no way do I see this site as "trying to be a netlabel" any more so than Interjamp or Subsource do when they put together netlabel scene related mixes. Only difference here is they are using the music content to keep people at their site or attract a few new visitors.. Where on our sites the material itself is the main attraction and the entire point.

>Obviously it is my conception that no worthy
>artist can actually live off their productions

Worthy? Bah. This type of mindset has become a pet peeve of mine and I see it as entirely too simplistic and naive. First of all, any serious musician can attest and agree on the annoyance of people asking how much money they make off music or if they can live off of it. However, this isn't the entire picture. Many of us work or have worked in fields related to our skills as a musician, be it sessioning, video games, engineering or even elevator music, whatever. There is nothing wrong with making a living off of what you love to do, and many of us see this as an actual goal in life. fuck working for other people and fuck being completely broke.

>alone, without resorting to more commercial
>labels, where music equals money and top50
>charts, which would make them unworthy in my
>book.

thats not true either,.. there's thousands (easily more) of ppl and bands making a decent living with none of these ingredients involved. to say or think otherwise is to ignore the obvious.

But who said money was the issue here? I didn't. Its not and shouldn't be. We aren't in this for the money. Which is where the hyopcrite accusation I made earlier comes in.

>It's a question of artists' integrity.

No it's not, I fail to see this connection. Again I think this is being naive, simplistic, and very exagerated in regards to this MB situation.

>Artists that are on there: Do you really want to
>be a rockstar...? Because thát imho is where the
>ego comes in.

I dont personally care for any rockstar-status, but I wouldn't hold it against someone who does. Whats with the one sided view of what an Ego is or isnt? One of the longest running debates and annoyances in any art culture since the dawn of man has been the elitest. And this is exactly what has impreganted 90% of the threads I've read here on this subject.

Anyways, we're all entitled to our own opinions but I see yours and similar ones as being entirely way off balanced and ignoring larger pictures. I also think they give this MB site way too much credit and are over emphasizing on the seriousness of the matter. When it comes down to it, people dont have to participate if they don't want to.

This post was modified by aaron m on 2004-06-27 18:04:32

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffErratic Date: Jun 27, 2004 3:08pm
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: Mercedes-Benz hearts netlabels?

> When i used the word Masses, its obvious I did not mean mass consumption.
When i said mass consumption, i was talking about Sony-type labels, which rely on mass consumption.

>>Tell me: how can a bunch of moneydriven 9-5'ers
>>replace a serious netlabel-owner's "passionate"
>>(as Sebastian puts it) perspective?
>Whats even the point of this question? Again I fail to see the connection.
>I also find that reducing all of MB's customer base to money driven, money greedy people as immature.
I meant that most probably no MB staff (not costumers!) will have the same kind of dedication as netlabel-owners do (who founded the netlabel from their own convictions), seeing that they're just doing what they're told to do. But hey maybe there's uber-enthousiastic folks working there...

>A type of audience we don't normally target. I see no problem with this..someone doing the work for us that we dont want or
>care to do.
I wouldn't see a problem either if it were a non-profit organisation.

>>In this way they piss on what defines netlabels.
> In what way? I fail to see the connection here. You're reaching.
>Only difference here is they are using the music content to keep people at their site or attract a few new visitors.. Where
>on our sites the material itself is the main attraction and the entire point.
Exactly... and using artists free of charge to promote their business is not abuse to you?

>>Obviously it is my conception that no worthy
>>artist can actually live off their productions
>Worthy? Bah.
Ok imagine i used "serious".

>This type of mindset has become a pet peeve of mine and I see it as entirely too simplistic and naive. First of all, any
>serious musician can attest and agree on the annoyance of people asking how much money they make off music or if they can
>live off of it. However, this isn't the entire picture.
>Many of us work or have worked in fields related to our skills as a
>musician, be it sessioning, video games, engineering or even elevator music, whatever. There is nothing wrong with making a
>living off of what you love to do, and many of us see this as an actual goal in life. fuck working for other people and fuck
>being completely broke.
I never disapproved of these types of jobs as i was talking about "their productions", as in personal works, meant for release purely as music. Nobody likes being broke or working for other people.

>We aren't in this for the money. Which is where
>the hyopcrite accusation I made earlier comes in.
All i'm saying is that i believe the artists shouldn't allow MB to use their music simply because they use it to their corporation's advantage (who _are_ in it for the money). Ofcourse every artist should decide that for him/herself if they get this chance. To me it would be something like selling my soul for misdirected promotion.

>>It's a question of artists' integrity.
>No it's not, I fail to see this connection.
The connection is: when you sell your soul to the devil, you lose your artists' integrity.

>Again I think this is being naive, simplistic, and very exagerated in regards to this MB situation.
It's easy to refute anything by calling it naive or simplistic.

>Anyways, we're all entitled to our own opinions but I see yours and similar ones as being entirely way off balanced and
>ignoring larger pictures.
If i ignored any larger pictures, it was because i didn't want to make a book of my text. I know well enough what i'm talking about.

>I also think they give this MB site way too much credit and are over emphasizing on the
>seriousness of the matter.
Relative.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)